I'd like to hear your opinion on what lens fits my needs best.Recently I switched to FF and now it is time to upgrade my lenses as well.

What I do:Mostly landscapes, tele for details and the occasional animal. While I am not hiking multiple days with my eqipment it should fit well into one backpack with other stuff and weight is an issue.Sometimes people shots.

With the current cashback I was thinking about getting the new 70-200IS and a teleconverter for reach if I need it. On the other hand directly going for the 70-300 or 100-400 adds more reach at lower weight and cost.

The f2.8 of the 70-200 is nice to have but not an absolute must. A 70-200/f4 however would be too slow if I add a TC.I understand that IQ from the 70-200/2.8 is best among these lenses and the -300 comes second.

Before I rent all these lenses for a weekend to test I'd be interested if you have advice or were in a similar situation.

I probably shoot similar to you, landscape / travel, and bought the 70-300L for the reasons of weight, size, zoom range & quality, in that order.

I already have an old Sigma 70-200 2.8, which is ok, but I don't use it that much (my style preference is wide angle) and the weight of a 2.8 lens is considerable. It was mainly used for motorsport pics.

I did think about the 100-400 but again prefer the wider end of the range, smaller size, better IS & more modern design.

With my 5d3 or 7d, I can crop in quite a bit with the excellent IQ of the 70-300L to get the 'pic'!

I can't praise this lenses quality high enough, and you will see other posts saying the same...

From everything you write the 70-300L is your lens because it unifies a small pack size (veeeery important when outdoors) with good iq (sharpness wide open, boekeh) and "always on" reach. For prolonged use it's important the weight is way below the 70-200L/2.8, and the 70-300L feels even less heavy because it's shorter, i.e. putting less torsion on the wrist.

When outdoors using a tc often is a pita since it takes time and it lets dust/sand enter the camera, but a Kenko tc (Canon doesn't fit) works fine with the 70-300L though the af performance/precision degrades somewhat, ymmv.

From everything you write the 70-300L is your lens because it unifies a small pack size (veeeery important when outdoors) with good iq (sharpness wide open, boekeh) and "always on" reach. For prolonged use it's important the weight is way below the 70-200L/2.8, and the 70-300L feels even less heavy because it's shorter, i.e. putting less torsion on the wrist.

When outdoors using a tc often is a pita since it takes time and it lets dust/sand enter the camera, but a Kenko tc (Canon doesn't fit) works fine with the 70-300L though the af performance/precision degrades somewhat, ymmv.

+1

Besides that, what you need to do is to see the focal lengths you shoot at. That should tell you what you need. I got the 100-400L for birds and animals. Having said that, I shot with it at the Grand Canyon and I did use it at 400mm.

I got the 70-300L (not using the others and a good Canon direct refurb deal) because of: 1)in my price rage, 2)more reach than the 70-200IS, 3)awesome user reports from those who have it. I moved form the EF-S 55-250mm so it was awesome, but along side my 15-85 it is so much better. 100% still look useable for my anal-retentive amateur style. If you dont care about constant apature in telephoto try it. Im happy and my old man with his Nikon 70-200/2.8 was kind of jealous (my opinion through PP review, not his) that it was so sharp. Rent it and see I say.

Besides that, what you need to do is to see the focal lengths you shoot at. That should tell you what you need. I got the 100-400L for birds and animals. Having said that, I shot with it at the Grand Canyon and I did use it at 400mm.

I did that and am in the 200-300mm (*1.6 for crop) range if I need details.Price (in the range of the discussed lenses) is not so much an issue.When the 70-300mm L came out I thought it was overpriced for the fact that it is a slow lense - which doesn't matter so much for landscape though.

The real dilemma is 70-300mm L vs. 100-400 L... fortunately there is an easy solution. Pick up a used 7D and you have an "effective" reach of 112-480mm. I put the EF 70-300L on my old 40D for the very first time in two years to shoot an outdoor event this weekend and was very pleased with the reach. With the EF 24-105mm for candids and overview shots on the 5DII, it makes a great two-body event combo. For tromping in the woods for flora/fauna, I would keep the same combo or go with the 70-300L on the full frame and maybe a 100 macro on the crop. For birding, I'd try the 70-300L on full frame and a 300/4 + TC on the crop (poor man's solution).

It's been said many times before but is worth repeating: f/2.8 zooms for indoors | f/4+ zooms for outdoors. Your situation doesn't demand an f/2.8 lens.

You should also think about what it is you may be shooting in the future, if you think you may get into sports or shoot 70-300 in poor light then that is when the 70-200 f/2.8 is ii may be best, but for now I would think the 70-300L f/4.5-5.6 IS USM is your best bet.

You should also think about what it is you may be shooting in the future, if you think you may get into sports or shoot 70-300 in poor light then that is when the 70-200 f/2.8 is ii may be best, but for now I would think the 70-300L f/4.5-5.6 IS USM is your best bet.

The real dilemma is 70-300mm L vs. 100-400 L... fortunately there is an easy solution. Pick up a used 7D and you have an "effective" reach of 112-480mm. I put the EF 70-300L on my old 40D for the very first time in two years to shoot an outdoor event this weekend and was very pleased with the reach. With the EF 24-105mm for candids and overview shots on the 5DII, it makes a great two-body event combo. For tromping in the woods for flora/fauna, I would keep the same combo or go with the 70-300L on the full frame and maybe a 100 macro on the crop. For birding, I'd try the 70-300L on full frame and a 300/4 + TC on the crop (poor man's solution).

It's been said many times before but is worth repeating: f/2.8 zooms for indoors | f/4+ zooms for outdoors. Your situation doesn't demand an f/2.8 lens.

—chas

Another consideration is that the 100-400 weighs about as much as the 70-200 II. The 70-300 is the most compact and lightest of the three.

I have both the 70-200 f/4 IS and the 100-400 on a 7d. I shoot everything landscapes to portraits to birds. I can tell you that there have been several times when the 70-200 was not long enough for those distant landscape details, and that's on a crop, so on FF it will seem even shorter. That said the 70-200 is without a doubt the sharpest of the bunch. And it is sharp! The 100-400 is great for its versatility. I use it mainly for wildlife, but I have used it for outdoor sports as well. It is a sharp lens, but anytime I can switch to the 70-200 I do because it is sharper. The 70-200 is also considerably lighter and weather sealed. Weather sealing is actually something to consider with the 100-400, as it is less weather sealed than most lenses as the push pull design lends itself to the possibility of moisture on the barrel getting in the lens and damaging the tension ring. I do not have hands on experience with the 70-300L, but the 100% crops from it do look great. Not sure I can give you a definitive answer, but it sounds like for your needs the 70-200 or 70-300L would fit the bill.

Besides that, what you need to do is to see the focal lengths you shoot at. That should tell you what you need. I got the 100-400L for birds and animals. Having said that, I shot with it at the Grand Canyon and I did use it at 400mm.

I did that and am in the 200-300mm (*1.6 for crop) range if I need details.Price (in the range of the discussed lenses) is not so much an issue.When the 70-300mm L came out I thought it was overpriced for the fact that it is a slow lense - which doesn't matter so much for landscape though.

Probably the best thing really is to rent the 70-300 and try it.

Well, if you are mostly in the 200-300mm range, and when at 300mm it is not like you are wishing you had the 400mm option, the 70-300L should do it. If you must have f2.8 then go for the 70-200.